Author
Topic: Overheard on Facebook (Read 3008704 times)

I want to add a big thank you to the moderators for the tough job you do balancing the freedom of ideas around here with keeping this a respectful and safe space online. There is so much ugliness out there and it means a lot to me that I can come here for intelligent exchange of ideas. Keeping that expectation of mutual respect is hugely important to the value this community brings to me.

The point for me is that the anti-mustachian mocking is done with anonymised targets. Those "memes" are bullying identifiable people.

I think everyone here agrees that those "memes" are stupid. Chris22 seemed to be making a joke based on the fact that his name happens to be mentioned in the image, and apparently broke the "no calling people fat" rule. But calling an anonymous fat person fat, without them being a reader of the forum, is not bullying, and although the person is identifiable in the broadest sense, they are not actually identified (nor can they be easily identified).

Anyways, here's a real meme:

Quote

You’ve probably seen what might be one of the lamest, most annoying crazes on Facebook already.

A confronting image of someone who’s disfigured or overweight is posted with text overlaid asking you to tag someone.

Hilarious right?

While getting tagged in one of these may be annoying – and probably a good indicator that you should cull your friends list – spare a thought for those actually featured in the memes.

One of those people, Lizzie Valasquez, had fired back after coming across a meme featuring her image.

“You might find it hilarious but the human in the photo is probably feeling the exact opposite,” she wrote in a post which has since gone viral.

Not about money, but those degrading "tag someone" mêmes. I just gently called someone out for posting it on Facebook. I hate conflict, but I just couldn't ignore this one for some reason. So I am hiding out here and working my nerve up to check Facebook again... Or not for a while, because I don't actually have to. Shew.

How about that secret sister gift exchange thing going around on facebook. You post on your wall and you only have to send 1 item (I've seen books and bottles of wine) and in return you will get between 6 and 36 items in return.

A friend posted it and I asked how if every person only sends 1 gift out, you get more back than the number of people participating. She never responded, but the post was deleted.

Secret Santa Pyramid Scheme. Key is to get in early.

Yeah I participated in one, it was for books. I didn't really care to advertise it, but don't mind spending $8 to send a great book to someone I know every once in a while.

I don't mind the idea of having gift exchanges or secret santas, its the breakdown in logic that claims that you will receive many times over what you gave that bugs me. Where are all these extra books coming from?

How about that secret sister gift exchange thing going around on facebook. You post on your wall and you only have to send 1 item (I've seen books and bottles of wine) and in return you will get between 6 and 36 items in return.

A friend posted it and I asked how if every person only sends 1 gift out, you get more back than the number of people participating. She never responded, but the post was deleted.

Secret Santa Pyramid Scheme. Key is to get in early.

Yeah I participated in one, it was for books. I didn't really care to advertise it, but don't mind spending $8 to send a great book to someone I know every once in a while.

I don't mind the idea of having gift exchanges or secret santas, its the breakdown in logic that claims that you will receive many times over what you gave that bugs me. Where are all these extra books coming from?

The government. They already print extra money when they need it; what's a few books?

How about that secret sister gift exchange thing going around on facebook. You post on your wall and you only have to send 1 item (I've seen books and bottles of wine) and in return you will get between 6 and 36 items in return.

A friend posted it and I asked how if every person only sends 1 gift out, you get more back than the number of people participating. She never responded, but the post was deleted.

Secret Santa Pyramid Scheme. Key is to get in early.

Yeah I participated in one, it was for books. I didn't really care to advertise it, but don't mind spending $8 to send a great book to someone I know every once in a while.

I don't mind the idea of having gift exchanges or secret santas, its the breakdown in logic that claims that you will receive many times over what you gave that bugs me. Where are all these extra books coming from?

from my understanding is the person you send your book to is above you, you then send your address to 6 people who then pass it on to another 6 each thus you get 36?

from my understanding is the person you send your book to is above you, you then send your address to 6 people who then pass it on to another 6 each thus you get 36?

If that makes sense

Sure, the problem is that this, like all pyramid structures, it cannot go on forever with an infinite supply of people below you on the chain. Not to mention if it's bounded by a date, like Christmas, people don't have time to send gifts up to the next people on the chain and also get their own gifts. Realistically, I bet these things barely go a single generation of gifts, so most people send but do not receive.

http://www.snopes.com/secret-sisters-gift-exchange/ (note: the snopes article suggests they are all illegal, but I'm pretty sure it's only illegal when it goes through the federal mail). When it's on facebook, it's just cringey/awkward that people fall for it.

from my understanding is the person you send your book to is above you, you then send your address to 6 people who then pass it on to another 6 each thus you get 36?

If that makes sense

Sure, the problem is that this, like all pyramid structures, it cannot go on forever with an infinite supply of people below you on the chain. Not to mention if it's bounded by a date, like Christmas, people don't have time to send gifts up to the next people on the chain and also get their own gifts. Realistically, I bet these things barely go a single generation of gifts, so most people send but do not receive.

http://www.snopes.com/secret-sisters-gift-exchange/ (note: the snopes article suggests they are all illegal, but I'm pretty sure it's only illegal when it goes through the federal mail). When it's on facebook, it's just cringey/awkward that people fall for it.

yes I assume most people don't follow through on the sending of books/wine ect. Most of the ones I have seen havent been bound by a date but either way I assume most people dont do it

How about that secret sister gift exchange thing going around on facebook. You post on your wall and you only have to send 1 item (I've seen books and bottles of wine) and in return you will get between 6 and 36 items in return.

A friend posted it and I asked how if every person only sends 1 gift out, you get more back than the number of people participating. She never responded, but the post was deleted.

My mom participated in that, and tried to get me to sign up. I didn't have the heart to explain it to her.

Edit: I was also reminded of a friend who posts photos of this monthly clothing subscription box she receives. Basically, this company sends you several items of clothing, every month, that they pick out for you, and you pay for them. That's the deal.

How about that secret sister gift exchange thing going around on facebook. You post on your wall and you only have to send 1 item (I've seen books and bottles of wine) and in return you will get between 6 and 36 items in return.

A friend posted it and I asked how if every person only sends 1 gift out, you get more back than the number of people participating. She never responded, but the post was deleted.

My mom participated in that, and tried to get me to sign up. I didn't have the heart to explain it to her.

Edit: I was also reminded of a friend who posts photos of this monthly clothing subscription box she receives. Basically, this company sends you several items of clothing, every month, that they pick out for you, and you pay for them. That's the deal.

To be fair: if I could find the mythical clothing service of my dreams, I'd pay for it. As it stands, it doesn't exist.

The mythical clothing service of my dreams would: - Take into account exact size and body shape - Take into account preferences (flannel button-down vs peplum top? Texture of fabric? etc)- Take into account what's needed (aka: right now, I need button-down PJ tops and shirts, new black socks, high-waisted cotton panties for postpartum use, and 1-2 non-patterned cardigan in this specific range of colors, so ONLY send me that)- Ship to Canada

Basically, if they could offer me a clothing service that was essentially an affordable personal shoppig service that delivered what I needed to my door without me needing to comb through 16 websites OR the mall, I'd totally pay an extra bit to avoid the aggravation. I don't need 6 cute tops that generally suit my tastes, nor am I willing to pay for them - eff subscription boxes. I'd absolutely pay for someone to find me the specific thing I want in under 6 hours of shopping, though. The mall near my old apartment had a FREE personal shopping service that did that. It wasnt well-known, but MAN was it useful.

I unfollowed all my friends. Every single one. I had a totally blank newsfeed for months. It was fantastic. Now I'm deciding whether to re-follow just a few people that I actually miss having updates from, or whether to carry on manually going to their profile whenever I wonder what they're up to. I would highly recommend the mass unfollow.

I went a different direction and just quit Facebook entirely. I miss some of the pics from friends but nothing else about FB. I especially don't miss feeling addicted to the feed.

I fell for the Pyramid Scheme Book Club. I guess I didn't read closely enough, because I assumed it was going to be a situation where you send a book to someone else who expressed an interest and someone on the list sends a book to you. Like an actual Secret Santa - not some BS Facebook chain letter.

I was disappointed to get the "details" and I never shared it. But I did decide to buy the book to send to the person who wanted books. Because ultimately she just wanted someone to send her books.

Maybe the infinite supply of books comes from suckers like MgoSam and me who end up sending books without the expectation of receiving books in return... because we just want to send books to our friends. :)

But it is relatively recently in human society, and still not universal, that sexual preference is protected by being put in an "inherent" category rather than the "personal choice" category ...

I don't know what "inherent" or "personal choice" mean to you, but as far as I know there's no convincing evidence showing a particular etiology of sexual preferences (end even if those did exist, it wouldn't necessarily shed any light on "choice"). I'm not even aware of a convincing argument that sexual preference is a meaningful category. None of the models I've read even attempt to account for all of the diversity.

I think "choice" is irrelevant here. To be sure, the term "choice" can be useful as a descriptive shorthand (and I use it myself in that sense), but it has limited independent ontological content. The real reason that we shouldn't judge people for their sexual preferences is not because the preferences are "inherent", but because those preferences don't say anything negative about the person in question, and in particular do not reflect adversely on that person's character. A characteristic being "inherent" is a fragile basis on which to build protection for individual rights, not only because of the philosophical difficulties with choice, but also because acting on sexual preferences is itself a choice, and therefore a theory of rights based on "choice" protects only the preference and not the actions. The "choice" theory can't even deal with certain formalistic arguments against equal rights in the public sphere.

I briefly weighed in on the weight debate back on October 4, 2015, and my position has not changed since then. I think it's in poor taste to criticise people for their weight, but my analysis does not rely on "choice" or lack thereof. Instead, I just think that weight by itself doesn't tell you anything interesting about a person (not without a whole lot of other information), and therefore it is objectionable to criticise people for it without understanding the full story. Even if we assume that obesity is associated with poor willpower (a topic on which I express no comment), it's not necessarily present poor willpower but possibly only past poor willpower, and furthermore, it is really just one particular species of poor willpower that does not readily generalise to other life activities, or even to any important life activities outside of eating. The willpower involved in controlling how much food one eats involves a very specific set of biological effects which may not be the same effects that are relevant in other situations, such as in financial situations.

The weight issue is further complicated when the subject is a woman because, in general, our society heavily regulates appearance and beauty standards for women in a way it does not do for men. I found the phrase "fat chick" to be problematic because, in context, it seems like a pretty clear example of a patriarchal pejorative phrase designed to sanction a woman for straying from male-crafted standards of conventional physical attractiveness. The phrase was not just a neutral factual description. If that was the goal, a phrase like "the woman in the first photo" could have been used. No such unmarked phrase was used because the goal was to enforce beauty standards, not just to uniquely identify the person in the picture.

Maybe the infinite supply of books comes from suckers like MgoSam and me who end up sending books without the expectation of receiving books in return... because we just want to send books to our friends. :)

LOL. If all that happens is that me and CPA Cat have sent a great book to someone we knew, I consider it a fair bargain. I LOVE reading and don't mind sharing books every once in a while.

But it is relatively recently in human society, and still not universal, that sexual preference is protected by being put in an "inherent" category rather than the "personal choice" category ...

I don't know what "inherent" or "personal choice" mean to you, but as far as I know there's no convincing evidence showing a particular etiology of sexual preferences (end even if those did exist, it wouldn't necessarily shed any light on "choice"). I'm not even aware of a convincing argument that sexual preference is a meaningful category. None of the models I've read even attempt to account for all of the diversity.

I think "choice" is irrelevant here. To be sure, the term "choice" can be useful as a descriptive shorthand (and I use it myself in that sense), but it has limited independent ontological content. The real reason that we shouldn't judge people for their sexual preferences is not because the preferences are "inherent", but because those preferences don't say anything negative about the person in question, and in particular do not reflect adversely on that person's character. A characteristic being "inherent" is a fragile basis on which to build protection for individual rights, not only because of the philosophical difficulties with choice, but also because acting on sexual preferences is itself a choice, and therefore a theory of rights based on "choice" protects only the preference and not the actions. The "choice" theory can't even deal with certain formalistic arguments against equal rights in the public sphere.

I briefly weighed in on the weight debate back on October 4, 2015, and my position has not changed since then. I think it's in poor taste to criticise people for their weight, but my analysis does not rely on "choice" or lack thereof. Instead, I just think that weight by itself doesn't tell you anything interesting about a person (not without a whole lot of other information), and therefore it is objectionable to criticise people for it without understanding the full story. Even if we assume that obesity is associated with poor willpower (a topic on which I express no comment), it's not necessarily present poor willpower but possibly only past poor willpower, and furthermore, it is really just one particular species of poor willpower that does not readily generalise to other life activities, or even to any important life activities outside of eating. The willpower involved in controlling how much food one eats involves a very specific set of biological effects which may not be the same effects that are relevant in other situations, such as in financial situations.

The weight issue is further complicated when the subject is a woman because, in general, our society heavily regulates appearance and beauty standards for women in a way it does not do for men. I found the phrase "fat chick" to be problematic because, in context, it seems like a pretty clear example of a patriarchal pejorative phrase designed to sanction a woman for straying from male-crafted standards of conventional physical attractiveness. The phrase was not just a neutral factual description. If that was the goal, a phrase like "the woman in the first photo" could have been used. No such unmarked phrase was used because the goal was to enforce beauty standards, not just to uniquely identify the person in the picture.

While I often have to read these sentences a few times to get the gist (and look up words in the dictionary too), I liked this response. Well said.

I guess a new arcade opened up at the Mall of America. There's people on FB gushing about it.

It looks like a single go-kart ride costs $23, though there are probably packages or other ways to make the per ride cost lower. Virtual reality games cost $5 each. I can see this as being a money maker as there are plenty of people that will throw down money for such things.

The guy behind this is has opened up 5 in various malls in India, this is his first venture into the US. I give him credit for the investment.

The weight issue is further complicated when the subject is a woman because, in general, our society heavily regulates appearance and beauty standards for women in a way it does not do for men. I found the phrase "fat chick" to be problematic because, in context, it seems like a pretty clear example of a patriarchal pejorative phrase designed to sanction a woman for straying from male-crafted standards of conventional physical attractiveness. The phrase was not just a neutral factual description. If that was the goal, a phrase like "the woman in the first photo" could have been used. No such unmarked phrase was used because the goal was to enforce beauty standards, not just to uniquely identify the person in the picture.

Not disagreeing with your post but have you read a women's magazine before? They are the ones holding women to impossible standards of beauty.

I would also add that body image is increasingly becoming a problem for boys/men too. The entire industry built around protein supplements, steroid use and fitness in general is testament to that.

I guess a new arcade opened up at the Mall of America. There's people on FB gushing about it.

It looks like a single go-kart ride costs $23, though there are probably packages or other ways to make the per ride cost lower. Virtual reality games cost $5 each. I can see this as being a money maker as there are plenty of people that will throw down money for such things.

The guy behind this is has opened up 5 in various malls in India, this is his first venture into the US. I give him credit for the investment.

I guess a new arcade opened up at the Mall of America. There's people on FB gushing about it.

It looks like a single go-kart ride costs $23, though there are probably packages or other ways to make the per ride cost lower. Virtual reality games cost $5 each. I can see this as being a money maker as there are plenty of people that will throw down money for such things.

The guy behind this is has opened up 5 in various malls in India, this is his first venture into the US. I give him credit for the investment.

Not disagreeing with your post but have you read a women's magazine before? They are the ones holding women to impossible standards of beauty.

Right! Beauty standards would go away if not for those damn women's magazines. I don't know where they came up with such a crazy idea. Women, amirite?

Nope, it's the men buying all those magazines and products that the ads in them sell.

weeeeird, i don't read this magazines neither buy much beauty products but i STILL AM pressioned by those beauty standards.it's almost like the magazines aren't the cause, but a byproduct of a whole culture.

Not disagreeing with your post but have you read a women's magazine before? They are the ones holding women to impossible standards of beauty.

Right! Beauty standards would go away if not for those damn women's magazines. I don't know where they came up with such a crazy idea. Women, amirite?

Nope, it's the men buying all those magazines and products that the ads in them sell.

weeeeird, i don't read this magazines neither buy much beauty products but i STILL AM pressioned by those beauty standards.it's almost like the magazines aren't the cause, but a byproduct of a whole culture.

I wonder how much this bell curve has shifted to the right in the last 100 years. Americans are getting larger, no doubt about it. The "average" american also is sedentary, dies early of heart disease, and has no retirement savings.

Average is a statistical term and should not be something to strive for.

On it's face, this seems like proof that the standards are "impossible," since so many people fall outside the standards. But lets get real about the beauty standards we are talking about. I don't personally think "not obese" is an unreasonable beauty standard. I don't expect any real-life people to look like a photoshopped magazine cover, but unhealthy weight (over and under) is unattractive.